Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The rich are way undertaxed in France!

You see!

Socialism is not about the poor. It is about envy!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Oncle Boris,

I have spend 41 years in the business, in 6 firms, all in different industries (I hate to say that because it does not qualify positively my opinions - it is just a light on my testimony).

What I have seen and done does not coincide with your picture or the corporate world. The very bad exemples of the last ten years does not depict it either.

A corporation is not an abstract object, it is run by men; the good or bad results obtained are the direct consequences of their decisions. And these men have sometimes to stand up and say *I desagree, I suggest another way*.

Regarding the relations with the workers, and their unions, I used to tell them when we first met : There are two subjects on which the Company will always be in agreement with you, the safety at work, and the conditions of the work; on these two points we share the same interest.

About the salaries and fringes, I discovered that the main concern of the workers is to be fairly treated (they collectively dislike nepotism, me too). Therefore when there was not a clear system enforced, I established one.

And when I was given the order to prepare a layoff of 30% of the workforce, I came back with a plan showing that it was cheaper to use the normal turn over, associated with training and financial measure.

So, Oncle Boris, in my word the management is always
prepared and willing to discuss problems.

Of course, my picture was overdrawn, but I will continue to defend the 'aesthetic' reasoning behind it. First, I will assume that you have worked for European corporations, at a time when globalization had not kicked in with its full strength. I think the 'worsening' of the last 10 years is due in part to the opening of foreign, cheaper workforce, which has put a huge pressure on competitiveness- because if you don't find a way to reduce your costs, you can be sure someone else will be doing it and bring you to your knees.
I will agree that worker unions made huge progress in the 70s and the 80s, and have been succesful in obtaining fair conditions. I'm not saying that a CEO is necessarily a genocidic monster who would want to see his workers starve. Rather, the softening of their position is due to the fact they didn't have the choice anymore: many workers were unionized, protection laws were strong, and unemployment was low. Those industries, in the 90s, seeing the first opportunity to 'reclaim' their lost power, have started moving fabs in poorer countries and sub-contracting in India, etc.
Are companies willing to discuss? If you look at how unions are being treated in China and other poorer countries, I think discussion is only undertaken seriously when it is cheaper- i.e., your workforce is educated, has enough savings to afford a strike, and is protected by strong laws.

Now, that people like you have been moderate is a great thing. But I think it's also part of a culture that has been succesful in the social-democrat West, whose expansion has been not favored by the post-Cold War savage openings of the poorer countries' workforce.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Socialism is not about the poor. It is about envy!

Socialism is about making an economic system in which the property of production means belongs to the workers rather than to an owner caste.

It has strongly to do with the distribution of power rather than rich-poor concerns. However, an obvious consequence is that the riches are much more evely distributed.

[DAVOUT]

Oncle Boris,

I am unlucky, first a philosopher refused to discuss about economy, and now it is an artist who dismiss economic arguments because they do not fit his aesthetic.

Good luck (it is sarcastic, because I am totally convinced that MEN move the world, not systems).

BTW, Ford Motor Company is not a European corporation; that did not prevent it to smoothly adapt the multinational ruling to European conditions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
Interestingly, I think socialism, by blunting so many of the worse impulses of capitalism has blunted the possibility of the Marxist revolution.

The great paradox of socialism. We made capitalism livable.

[Kuciwalker]

I think no government can not only avoid being capitalist but also avoid being ridiculously authoritarian. The reason is that market forces exist even when there is no free market. Here's an example to illustrate my reasoning.

The People's Banana Republic has a socialist government (in the sense that everyone is employed by the government). Everyone is paid the same wage. However, airline pilots, who need extensive training and lots of skill (I don't care if this is true, ok?) decide they don't like the fact that an unskilled factory laborer makes as much as them, so they strike for higher wages. What does the government do?

1. Punish the strikers
2. Negotiate with the strikers and give them higher wages (cutting a tiny bit the wages of everyone else).

I would hope everyone sees the irony in the first option and that you can't really advocate that option and socialism at the same time (at least not with a straight face). Thus, the government has to take option 2.

Do you understand the implications of that? That means the the government is really one giant corporation with a monopoly on everything. The economy ends up being fundamentally capitalist except that there is a government-mandated monopoly on every industry. A monopoly, many people here would agree, is a bad thing, and things like that are what the 19th century robber barons are often criticized for . The market forces are still in effect, it's just they work poorly and slowly towards what workers want because of the monopoly. No competition allowed. I would be tempted to bring an antitrust suit against the government .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, what you describe as "socialist" could also be described as "Christian." The whole ethos of Christianity is concern for the poor and less fortunate. That is not something that Marx invented.

No, he just figured out how to create a society that would abolish poverty.

[Ned]

skywalker, I think the socialists understand your point. They just want to be the animals more equal than other animals.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Do you have any idea how part three will play out?

I think a better question is, do we care?

[Spiffor]

Skywalker:
A completely egalitarian socialism is not the one I want, because I think it is utopian and unrealistic. I believe that monetary reward is a strong way to motivate people. I think most socialists disagree with the egalitarian model you use as a premise too.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalist companies follow the aims and decisions of the owners, whereas socialist companies follow the aims and decisions of the workers. When the ownership and decision-process belongs to something else than the workers, this is not exactly a socialist company.

Egalitarian wages, state ownership, lack of motivational factors are not the systematic corollaries of a socialist system.

As such, there is no need to punish strikers when they want to play the supply & demand in their favour. It is possible to accept their demands, it is possible to find a compromise, or it is possible to reject their demands and see how the power confrontation between the employer (the worker-owned company) and the employees (the striking ones) turns out. Just like in a democratic capitalist society.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Oncle Boris,

I am unlucky, first a philosopher refused to discuss about economy, and now it is an artist who dismiss economic arguments because they do not fit his aesthetic.

Good luck (it is sarcastic, because I am totally convinced that MEN move the world, not systems).

BTW, Ford Motor Company is not a European corporation; that did not prevent it to smoothly adapt the multinational ruling to European conditions.

Well, if you worked for Ford, then you must know this famous equation:
"Do we do a recall?
Hmmm... let's calculate."
Cost of recall > cost of possible lawsuits.

Ok, no recall.

BTW, I don't think your arguments against me were economic. You merely talked about a company that was willing to discuss. And if you don't like "metaphors", then I'll stop doing them.

And about Ford conforming to regulations: well, wasn't my point "they need regulations to do it, or else they won't"?
It's funny, everytime I talk to someone with business experience about a Corporation's will to profit, they tell me, "no, that's not true". Strangely enough, they all drive BMWs and live in large mansions, and talk about how the unions are being detrimental to their profit. Bizarre.

[Fake Boris]

AAAAARGH double post

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Skywalker:
A completely egalitarian socialism is not the one I want, because I think it is utopian and unrealistic. I believe that monetary reward is a strong way to motivate people. I think most socialists disagree with the egalitarian model you use as a premise too.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalist companies follow the aims and decisions of the owners, whereas socialist companies follow the aims and decisions of the workers. When the ownership and decision-process belongs to something else than the workers, this is not exactly a socialist company.

Egalitarian wages, state ownership, lack of motivational factors are not the systematic corollaries of a socialist system.

As such, there is no need to punish strikers when they want to play the supply & demand in their favour. It is possible to accept their demands, it is possible to find a compromise, or it is possible to reject their demands and see how the power confrontation between the employer (the worker-owned company) and the employees (the striking ones) turns out. Just like in a democratic capitalist society.

How is a company not run by its employees? Anyone employed by a company - such as a manager - is an employee. Now, not all the employees run the company, necessarily - but an employee doesn't have to take work in a company that isn't run that way if he or she doesn't want to. So all you are doing is restricting the freedom of the employees.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
How is a company not run by its employees?

In a capitalist society, the company is ran by the owner(s) or by the one(s) they delegate to do the job (CEOs). These underlings manage according to the wishes and aims of the owners, not of the employees.
I know most CEOs are involved in the concerns of the company at large, and often try to defend these interests when the owners want too much plunder. But in the end, they aren't the bosses. In the end, they are at the service of the owners much more than of the company.

Now, not all the employees run the company, necessarily

Why not? In every modern democracy, the whole population is assumed to be sovereign. I fail to see why it couldn't work in a company

but an employee doesn't have to take work in a company that isn't run that way if he or she doesn't want to.

How does it contradict what I said earlier? Except that you assume a socialist economy is one where the State forces people to take a specific job?

So all you are doing is restricting the freedom of the employees.

I fail to see the connexion between what you have said and a socialist economy. I see the connection with an authoritarian statist economy, but not with a socialistic one.

[Kuciwalker]

How does it contradict what I said earlier? Except that you assume a socialist economy is one where the State forces people to take a specific job?

As I mentioned before, I'm using the term "socialist economy" to refer to one in which all industry is nationalized (everyone is employed by the government).